Re: Atheists: America's most distrusted minority


"Amy Guskin" <aisling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C06323F400AB311EF0407530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

John, no one was calling Gibson an anti-semite

Carl Dershem did. <<

No, no. I didn't mean "no one here." That half of the sentence belongs
with
the second half of the sentence. I meant "no one in the Jewish community
was
calling Gibson an anti-semite, but...(sentence continues)"

Understood.

....so jews *weren't* calling Gibson an anti-semite but other people were?


, but I can't believe you
missed the flap over this film in the Jewish community before it was
released.

I didn't miss it. I didn't find the critiques credible. <<

Well, that's as may be.

The nice thing about revisiting this debate is hindsight. If Gibson's film
fueled any great groundswell of anti-semitism we'd have seen it by now.
Given the way jews get trested in most countries, I think it's entirely
reasonable they be a little leery of any film that reinacts the death of
christ as that is irrevocably linked to the whole "jews killed Christ" meme.

With the film at or nearly at 2 years since its release, has "Passion of the
Christ" lived down to the fears expressed for it?

No.

Which means all the loud, long complaints and fears, the megabytes of
opinions written and the gallons on ink used to print them, were all at best
misjudgements of the state of affairs. The movie opened, ran for a time and
closed as all movies do. As reality replaced pre-release hype, the issue
dropped from daily discourse. Most of the hate generated by the film was
directed AT the film.


None of this explains the sheer hatred levelled at "Passion of the
Christ".
It doesn't explain why people called it a "snuff film" or otherwise
carried
on about it. People did and do hate Gibson's film and Gibson for making
it.
Nothing...NOTHING...Gibson put on screen explains why. The big clue we
have
is that criticism was amplified greatly and primarily by the political
Left,
suggesting a political motive. While much play was given the jewish
concerns (jewish stereotypes, whipping up anti-semitism, Gibson and his
film
branded anti-semetic, et al.), the sheer demonization (ironic, isn't it?)
that was generated suggests the jewish concerns were cover for other
motivations. <<

I can't get into this. I mean, first of all, I never saw the film - I
refuse
to give Gibson any of my money any more - but the idea that Jewish
concerns
over feelings of anti-Semitism being roused by the content of that film
were
cover for some nameless other motivations really pushes my buttons.
Whether
there _are_ other motivations or not, certainly the primary concern is
valid
enough. Whether you found the film good, bad, or indifferent, the
concerns
expressed were certainly not unfounded in the current world/political
climate. It's not like people have historically had to work that hard to
find reasons to kill Jews.

I agree, which is why I say jewish fears were legitimate, though unfounded.
And proven unfounded over the time between the film's release and now.

That doesn't explain or justify the non-jewish reaction to "Passion of the
Christ".

Jews didn't call Gibson an anti-semite. People like Carl Dershem did. By
extension, I think I can make the claim that jews didn't call "Passion of
the Christ" a "snuff film", either. The rancor and hate levelled at Gibson
and his film did not start with the jewish community nor do I believe they
encouraged it. Indeed, the non-jewish hatred might well have given jews
more cause for concern than they would have otherwise had.

Someone(s) whipped a legitimate discussion topic in a full-throated furor.
Someone(s) drove it for months on end, inflicting character assassination on
Gibson and his film, before it even opened. Reasonable concern for jews
became an unreasonable attempt to shout Gibson down. Gibson had the
free-speech right to make and show his film, but someone(s) took it upon
themselves to use their own free-speech rights to try to destroy Gibson's.

Given the diversity of this country it would be erroneous to say that this
gauntlet of rancor was purely a Leftist production, but the overwhelming
majority of it was. The political Left in this country unloaded on Gibson
and his film with both barrels. It's hard for me to see the hatred levelled
at either furthered any defense of jews or any sort of reasoned debate. But
the jewish angle made a handy cover for the unreasoned debate that occurred.
And it made people like Carl Dershem, who internalized the propaganda
levelled at Gibson. If "Passion of the Christ" is why you refuse to
patronize Gibson's work, you may wish to reconsider. If for other reasons,
never mind.

Dersham gave me four reasons why the film was hated and only one was worth
any extended debate: the anti-semitism angle. I have yet to find any
grounds for taking Dershm's accusations serously.

I *did* see "Passion of the Christ". It was very intense, but left me in no
doubt that it was filmed as a devotional. Tossed into the pond of a truly
tolerant culture, the only ripples it should have left were legitimate
jewish concerns and perhaps some discission of the actual portrayal, not the
tsuami of Leftist hartred that we saw.


--
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones




.